Promoting critical thinking in language arts and social studies at USSH HCMC differences in third year TESOL teacher questioning cognitive levels

The results highlighted that: 1 A significant higher percentage of critical thinking questions was identified in Language Arts group, reflecting a greater opportunity for Language Arts s

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

Wok |

; PROMOTING CRIRICAL THINKING IN LANGUAGE

DIFFERENCES IN THIRD-YEAR TESOL TEACHER

QUESTIONING COGNITIVE LEVELS

THU VIE |

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS (TESOL)

Submitted by NGUYEN THANH MAI

Supervisor

HA HAI CHAU, M.Sc., Dip.Med.Sc

Ho Chi Minh City, December 2010

ABSTRACT

This cross-sectional study was conducted from April 2008 to April 2010 in Ho Chi Minh City It aims to investigate the differences in teacher questioning cognitive levels in two content reading areas: Language Arts (i.e British Literature) and Social Studies (i.e American Studies) Total four volunteers were classified into two groups, respectively consisting of two Language Arts teachers, and two Social Studies teachers The data (teachers’ questions) were collected via class observations, respectively four for each group, and two for each volunteer All the classes are of similar academic level (third year) The quantitative data analysis was processed through Excel program, with the support of an interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence, and one for correlation coefficient tests of inter-rater reliability

The results highlighted that: (1) A significant higher percentage of critical thinking questions was identified in Language Arts group, reflecting a greater opportunity for Language Arts students to develop their critical thinking skills through teacher questioning; (2) A significant difference in teacher questioning cognitive levels has been identified in Language Arts group and Social Studies group, reflecting the effect of different teaching contents on teacher questioning cognitive levels; (3) significant difference in cognitive levels of teacher questions has been accounted in the Social Studies group, reflecting the possible effect of factors other than the teaching content on cognitive levels of teacher questions

The study also highlighted the needs for studies (1) to explore further effects

of teaching contents on teacher questioning levels; (2) to examine the effects of factors other than teaching contents on teacher questioning levels; (3) to identify the effect of higher-order cognitive level questions on promoting critical thinking skill

1.4 Sipnificance of the SfUdy chen HH rkc 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Ăn HH HH HH HH Hư 6

2.1 Thinking, critical thinking, and higher-order thinking 6

2.1.1 Thinking vs critical thinking, ii 6 2.1.2 Definition of critical thinking 5 55+ 2< «<< £ssesseersre 8

2.2 Teacher questioning and Critical thinking skills 13

2.2.2 Elaborating high-order cognitive questions using Bloom’s

2.2.2.2 Elaborating high-order cognitive questions using

2.3.2 Context of content-area reading in Language arts and Social

k6 my n e

3.4.1 Coding ofteachers” questIOnS - 5-52 ssersves

4.4.1 Social stuđl€S øTOUD TH HH HH HH HH,

5.2 Significance of the study Ăn HH HH Hy

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.3.2 a: Frequency (and Percentage) of Question Types in Baseline: Social

Studies and Reading/Language Arts (Beck et al., 1996)

Table 2.3.2 b: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Question in Baseline: Teacher

Social Studies Teacher 1: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of

Questions Asked in Social Studies Class 1 and 2 . - Social Studies Teacher 2: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of

Social Studies group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions

Language Arts Teacher 1: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions Asked in Language Arts Class l and 2

Language Arts Teacher 2: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of

Language Arts group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions

Language Arts group and Social Studies group: Type, Frequency (and

Percentage) of Total Questions Asked .ccccsceeceescesecseeteeereneenseeaees

Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions in Social Studies Group and Language Arts Group .ccecsesesesseseseeesseeesseceteeseneessneecnseeeesaeees Social Studies group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions Asked by two teachers ch Language Arts group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

% : percent

LA : Language Arts

LCI : Language Arts Class One

LC2 : Language Arts Class Two

LTI : Language Arts Teacher One

LT2 : Language Arts Teacher Two

SCl : Social Studies Class One

SC2 : Social Studies Class Two

SD : Standard Deviation

SS : Social Studies

ST] : Social Studies Teacher One

ST2 : Social Studies Teacher Two

TESOL : Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages USSH : University of Social Sciences and Humanities

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This thesis presents at its core the study of the differences in teacher questioning cognitive levels in promoting student critical thinking at university The introductory chapter gives an overview of the study background, states the purpose and then formulates the research questions, predicts the significance of the study in supporting the research field, and finally describes the thesis structure

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Facing the booming advance of sciences and technology, Educational Reform, with ensuing renovation of teaching method, is necessary for Vietnam development Because university syllabuses are heavier with more disciplines and more themes to study, class hours are more and more insufficient to pursue the traditional teaching The task of equipping students with a large amount of knowledge is no longer the decisive one in university classes (Vo, 2006) Thus, the students have to work more independently from their teachers’ guide Moreover, the more and more developed Informatics Technology (IT) provides the students a proliferation of accessible data,

requiring them to be information literacy, i.e to be able to “find, retrieve, analyze,

and use information” (Li, 2007)

Submerged by overloaded data, the students have to develop not only their ordinary thinking skills but also their abilities of analyzing the evidence-based

information, i.e critical thinking skills in interpreting texts (Beyer, 1987; and

Wallace, 1995) Similarly, to be information literacy, the students also need: to acquire critical thinking skills (Li, 2007)

Similar to other skills, students can acquire their critical thinking skills through the support of their teachers As quoted by Savage (1998), many researchers, such as Beyer (1987), Chance (1986), Costa and Lowery (1986), Paul (1990), Raths et al (1986), Schiever (1991), Swartz and Perkins (1990), agree that teachers can teach critical thinking skills using various strategies Among those strategies, “the strategy that can have the greatest impact on student thinking is teacher questioning” (Clasen, 1990, cited by Savage, 1998) In a research review on classroom questioning, Cotton (2003) reminded us of the popularity of teacher questioning in classroom Cotton also pointed out the purposes of teachers’ classroom questions, one of which was to develop critical thinking skills In order to help students develop their critical thinking skill, “theory strongly suggests that teachers should ask high-cognitive-level questions to have students apply learning

and think critically” (Wilen, 1987, quoted by Godfrey, 2001)

1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

However, in practice, it is not always an easy job for TESOL teachers to infuse critical thinking in their courses, where students still have to struggle with other knowledge applications such as grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation

Internationally, a few of studies have explored teachers’ use of high-cognitive- level questioning in TESOL classes (Godfrey, 2001) In Vietnam, to the thesis author’s knowledge, there has been no research on critical thinking as well as on teacher questioning cognitive levels to enhance student critical thinking skill acquisition

- In this research context, the study presented in this thesis was conducted from April 2008 to April 2010 in a university in Ho Chi Minh City to explore TESOL teachers’ use of high-cognitive-level questions in two different TESOL reading content subjects: Reading content in Language Arts, i.e British Literature, and Reading content in Social Studies, ic American Studies Those two types of subjects require different questioning strategy and techniques for enhancing students’ critical thinking skills, including different cognitive levels of teacher’s questions from the view of critical development

1.3 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study carried out at a University of Social Sciences and Humanities where there were Language Arts (i.e British Literature) and Social Studies (i.e American Studies) TESOL classes aims at answering the question:

What are differences in third-year TESOL teacher questioning cognitive levels between Language Arts and Social Studies?

3

In an attempt to find out relevant answers, the study explores four aspects:

Question 1: What are types and percentages of questions in Social Studies? Question 2: What are types and percentages of questions in Language Arts? Question 3: What is the effect of teaching subjects (Language Arts vs Social Studies) on teacher questioning?

Question 4: What is the influence of teacher experience on teacher questioning?

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In the world, little research has been done on the use of teacher questions and the development of critical thinking in TESOL classes (Godfrey, 2001) In Vietnam,

no research has been done on critical thinking as well as teacher questioning to promote critical thinking skills This paper, at the first attempt, is expected to contribute to the research of the effect of teacher questioning cognitive levels in promoting critical thinking skill acquisition in Vietnam, as well as in the world Thus, its significance to TESOL cannot be denied

1.5 THESIS STRUCTURE

The following Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to critical thinking, teacher questioning, and studies exploring teacher questioning cognitive levels in Language Arts and Social Studies classes

Chapter 3 describes the research methodology in terms of research method, timing, location, participants, data collection and analysis The quantitative data analysis was processed through Excel program, with the support of an interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence, and one for correlation coefficient tests of inter-rater reliability

Chapter 4 presents and discusses the data analysis in terms of (1) differences

of question types and percentages between teaching reading contents of Language Arts Social Studies, (2) the possible influence of teaching content on teacher questioning levels, and (3) the possible influence of other factors The discussion refers to the sources presented in Chapter 2

Chapter 5 concludes the thesis in terms of (1) the study contribution to the research on teacher questioning impact on student critical thinking skill acquisition, (2) the limitations of the research method, and (3) the future research perspectives

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides an overview (1) of critical thinking; (2) of the effect of teacher cognitive questioning levels in promoting student critical thinking development; (3) of the effects of two teaching content areas (Language Arts and Social Studies) on teacher questioning levels; (4) of the influence of teacher experience on teacher questioning; (5) of the taxonomies and classification schemes, especially Blooms’ taxonomy and the use of question types; (6) the studies exploring Blooms’ theory; and (7) the studies exploring teacher cognitive levels in Language Arts and Social Studies

2.1 THINKING, CRITICAL THINKING and HIGHER-ORDER THINKING

There are three terms that we need to distinguish: Thinking, Critical thinking and Higher-order thinking

2.1.1 Thinking vs Critical Thinking

According to Beyer (1987), thinking is the search for meaning, and involves two kinds of operations: cognitive and metacognitive The goal of cognition is to

“make” the meaning, i.e an individual thinks for the purpose of producing a specific meaning, such as a solution to a problem, a new truth, a clearer

understanding, or a judgment Thinking/ cognitive operations includes both skills and strategies Skills describe simple thinking operations, such as recalling or analyzing; whereas strategies describe more complex and sequential strategies, such

as problem solving or decision-making Metacognition tends to control, i.e to guide, correct, adjust and direct these cognitive operations to make meaning Thus, metacognition makes “individual stand outside their own head and to be aware of how they are going about their own thinking so that they can better accomplish what they are trying to accomplish’

According to Paul (1990), thinking is natural, i.e individuals “think spontaneously, continuously and pervasively”’ In the contrary, thinking critically

about the standards and principles guiding spontaneous thoughts, is not natural

Critical thinking may still be quite a new terminology in Vietnam Along with educational reforms, we have heard here and there people pressing on the teaching

of thinking to students According to Associate Professor Vo Xuan Dan (2006), in the age of information and technology where the amount of knowledge is increasing rapidly, the role of teacher in transmitting knowledge passively will have to decrease He also added that teacher should equip students with independently thinking methods so that students can use them after leaving school to discover knowledge which may have not been learnt at school Thinking here has not been defined exactly if it is critical thinking That is understandable this is just our first

step in the movement of educational reform, in general, and in teaching thinking to students, in particular Actually, the development of Informatics Technology with a proliferation of accessible data requires students to be information literacy That is

the ability to “find, retrieve, analyze, and use of information”, in other words, to

think critically (Li, 2007)

In the world, critical thinking was already introduced into teaching practice by Socrates with the method of probing questioning 2500 years ago Recently, in the 20" century, the idea of critical thinking has raised a new interest in educational field, emphasizing the need for critical thinking in providing good education, resulting in good citizen (Sumner, 1959; cited by Paul, 1990):

Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can

be truly said that it makes good citizenship

2.1.2 Definitions of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a state of mind, which is so abstract that it is hard for us to find an exact definition for it (Paul, 1990, p.31) cited many definition on critical thinking in his book named “Critical thinking — What every person need to survive

in a rapidly changing world” In this book, while Harvey Siegel defined critical thinking as “thinking appropriately moved by reasons”, Robert Ennis stated that

critical thinking is “rational reflective thinking concerned with what to do or believe” Matthew Lipman also gave a definition of critical thinking as “skillful, responsible thinking that is conductive to judgment because it relies on criteria, is

self-correcting, and is sensitive to context” Besides, citing some definitions of

critical thinking, Paul (1990, p.33) also provide a definition of critical thinking

“which lends itself to an analysis of three crucial dimensions of critical thought: 1) the perfections of thought; 2) the elements of thought; 3) the domains of thought”

There are more definitions of critical thinking According to Beyer (1985, as cited in Ulmer, 2005), critical thinking is “the assessing of authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments” (p.21) Kurfiss (1988, p.2) also had her own definition of critical thinking as “an investigation” to “explore a situation, phenomenon, questions,- or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion” which “integrates all available information” and “can be convincingly justified”

Critical thinking is not a concrete object, which results in various definitions

for it Besides, since everybody’s stands are quite different from each other’s, we view critical thinking differently Generally, there are two models we can follow to define critical thinking: one is based on philosophy, the other psychology Some representatives of philosophy-based theories with their definitions are Dewey,

Smith, Ennis, Lipman, Paul, Swartz, etc Representatives of psychology-based

theories and definitions are Bransford, Nickerson, Guilford, Sternberg, ( Quellmalz,

1987, pp x, 87-88)

The above various ways of defining critical thinking is an unavoidable matter during the first stage of the development of such a new and complex concept as critical thinking This makes it difficult for both researchers and practitioners in studying critical thinking and applying it to real life A need for a generally accepted definition of critical has been raised In order to get an opinion consensus,

a qualitative research called the Delphi Project (1990) reunited forty-six experts, consisting mainly of philosophers (52%), “and the rest were affiliated with education (22%), the social sciences including psychology (20%), and the physical sciences (6%)” to define critical thinking as a tool of inquiry releasing educational

force and individual resources, and to claim that education will maintain the

individual resources and develop critical thinking skills so that individuals can

probe their insights and use their resources to build up a rational and democratic

society (Facione, 1990)

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory

judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and

inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual,

methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon

which that judgment is based CT is essential as a tool of inquiry As

such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource

in one's personal and civic life While not synonymous with good

thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon

The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed,

trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation,

honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments,

willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters,

diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection

of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which

are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit

Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this

ideal It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those

dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are

the basis of a rational and democratic society

The Delphi Report plays an important role of a historical witness for the development of our concept about critical thinking This event proves that critical thinking is gradually widely recognized, especially in education field

11

2.1.3 Critical Thinking and Higher-Order Thinking

According to Lewis & Smith (1993, cited by Ulmer, 2005), the term, “critical thinking has been inconsistently used, adding to the confusion in defining higher- order thinking:

Critical thinking has been assigned at least three distinct meanings: a)

critical thinking as problem solving, b) critical thinking as evaluation

or judgment, and c) critical thinking as a combination of evaluation

and problem solving

However, Lewis and Smith argued that critical thinking is not the same problem solving and suggested a term boarder than critical thinking It is higher- order thinking Higher-order thinking “includes problem solving, creative thinking, decision making, reasoning and critical thinking” (Lewis & Smith) Sheffield (2008) also prefers to use the term higher-order thinking because “critical thinking skills cannot be easily differentiated from problem solving skills”:

Higher-order thinking is an umbrella term that encompasses bother

critical thinking and problem solving By using the umbrella term, the

mire of definition specificity can be reduced

According to Ulmer (2005), the term higher-order thinking is related to Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation levels in Bloom’s taxonomy (which will be discussed further in the following part) However, in common, just Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation levels are referred as higher-order thinking

(Bernadowski,, 2006)

Paul (1990) advances that high-order cognitive thinking is needed in every learning domain: from monological ones, i.e finished products, such as mathematics, so that students can think non-algorithmically into mathematical systems, to multilogical ones, such as history and sociology so that students can appreciate the truth (multilogical) nature of these domains

2.2 TEACHER QUESTIONING and CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

According to Paul (1990), the mind can think spontaneously but uncritically Learning to think critically is then needed, and constitutes an extraordinary process that cultivates capacities potential in human thought, i.e to make the mind discipline itself and to direct the mind to “rational rather egocentric beliefs,

practices, and values”

According to Halpern (1996, cited by Anita van der Wal, 1999), critical thinking could be taught and learnt at school Similar to other skills, student can

13

acquire their critical thinking skills through the support of their teacher Sumner (1959; cited by Paul, 1990) emphasized the teacher’s role in “cultivating” critical thinking as a “habit” in the students According to Sumner, teachers have great impacts on students through their own behaviors in class In the same manner, as quoted by Savage (1998), many researchers, such as Beyer (1987), Chance (1986), Costa and Lowery (1986), Paul (1990), Raths et al (1986), Schiever (1991), Swartz and Perkins (1990), agree that teachers can teach critical thinking skills using various strategies According to Wilen (1987, quoted by Godfrey, 2001), “theory strongly suggests that teachers should ask high-cognitive-level questions to have students apply learning and think critically’ Wimer, Ridenour, and Place (2001, cited by Bernadowski, 2006) also assumed that “asking higher-order-thinking questions that promote analysis, synthesis and evaluation rather than lower-order questions that rely on recall of information” enhances critical thinking skills

2.2.1 Teacher Questioning and Student Critical Thinking Development

The use of questioning in classroom has a long history, dating back to Socrates age, when Socratic questioning is consider as the heart of critical teaching (Paul, R., 1990) That was a method of questioning to challenge assumptions, exposes contradictions, and lead to new knowledge and understanding Up to now, the use

of questions in classroom has continued to be a “vital part of classroom instruction second only to lecturing in popularity” (Bernadowski, C., 2006) Questions have

been considered as the single most influential teaching act, “without the question there is no processing of information” (Hunkins, 1976) Moreover, as what Hyman (1976) pointed out, “the primary purpose of a question is to spur a person to think and to direct that person to think about a topic” Wilen, Ishler, Hutchinson, and Kindsvatte (2000) also shared that point of view when claiming that questioning is

an effective way “‘to stimulate student interaction, thinking and learning”

The important roles of questioning in classroom have been identified to develop student critical thinking However, research on teacher questioning so far has indicated that up to 60 percent of questions asked are lower cognitive questions, only 20 percent are higher cognitive questions and 20 percent are procedural (Cotton, K., 2003) These figures were the same as those found by Gall in 1970 after reviewing research done in this field for half of the century before that, which means that there has been no critical change on types of teacher questions in class

At the college level, the situation is no better with 83 percent of all questions asked

in undergraduate classrooms are at the factual level (Barnes, 1979)

Many research studies recognize the importance of teacher questioning in class as a “stimuli that convey to students the content to be learnt as well as the directions for what they are to do and how they are to do it” (Bernadowski, C., 2006) Many also do reckon that questions are of many types which functions differently and relatedly Some types of questions are to recall the facts, which help

15

- at the first step - to bring out data needed to answer thoughtful questions later Some other types of questions are to challenge student to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information, which are assumed to provoke student critical thinking Some others are used to review and summarize previous lessons and assess achievement

of instructional goals or objectives These variety of roles questions play and a variety of purposes questions serve are obvious However, many have also proved

that teachers are keen on asking lower-order-thinking questions than higher-order-

thinking ones

Interactions between teachers and students in class are not just through purely asking and answering questions It is believed that teachers set an agenda prior to the classroom discussions using questions as a mean to dominate the discussion (Bernadowski, C., 2006) So, questions if planned can arouse discussions in class, and classroom discussion, as a result, is the medium by which much teaching takes place and during which students demonstrate to teachers much of what they have learned” (Cazden, 1986) By asking questions, teachers mean to attract students’ interests in a topic and involved them in the debate, which give a support to students’ construction of meaning

Although many studies conclude that asking higher-cognitive-level questions

is a valid strategy for producing thinking at higher cognitive levels, there still are a number of studies that have demonstrated other results That really is so frustrating

to researchers in this field While a number of researches have proved the relationship between teacher higher-order thinking questions and the learners’ outcomes in term of critical thinking development, others conclude that “asking higher-cognitive-level questions is not enough to ensure comparable levels of

student cognitive performance” (Mills, Rice, Berliner, and Rosseau, 1980, as cited

in Cotton, 2003) In Cotton’s reviews of 37 studies of classroom questioning, he also stated that asking a higher-level question does not necessarily lead to getting a

higher-level answer (2003)

Moreover, teacher questioning, has also been reported leaving an opposite effect on what it is meant Although the act of asking questions has the potential to improve instruction and greatly facilitate the learning process, it also has the potential to turn a student off from: learning (Bernadowski, 2006) That is when questions embarrass students rather than promote their inquiry In that way, students feel exposed and stupid, especially when being laughed at by other students That the teachers evaluate student’s responses or do not really show genuine interest on students’ answer also leave a bad feeling on them As a result of that, questioning fails to fulfill not only its mission of enhancing student critical thinking but also its mission of encouraging student to learn

Whatever the research on teacher questioning has found, teacher questioning still interests many researchers, and research on teacher questioning has still been

[san]

THƯ VIỆN| ——~ mem

on progress since 1900s As the first 50 years of research focused on describing and evaluating teacher’s usage of questions in class, the next 20 years witnessed the development of sophisticated methods of systematic observation and analysis to identify teacher-questioning behaviors (Ellis, 1993) Later, investigators began to find out the correlation between teacher questioning and student achievement (Bernadowski, 2006) Since this is the first study in Vietnam focusing on this topic, the author chooses to evaluate teacher questioning in promoting student critical thinking skills as a first step to start this topic in Vietnam

2.2.2 Elaborating High-Order Cognitive Questions Using Bloom’s Taxonomy 2.2.2.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives is considered to be the most influential paradigm in education This taxonomy was developed by a committee of college and university examiners from 1949 to 1954 and published in 1956 (Paul, 1990) In this taxonomy, there are 6 hierarchical levels of cognition: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation The first three are classified as lower-order thinking while the last three are of higher-order thinking It

is assumed that to provide students with more chances of developing their critical thinking in the classroom, teachers’ questions are suggested to reach the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation levels Many studies reported in Bernadowski’s study (2006) have proved that “higher order questions tend to elicit higher level

cognitive responses” (Lam, 1976; Martin, 1979) and “effective teachers ask high- level cognitive questions” (Wilen and Clegg, 1980) Other studies also suggested that thinking is “elevated beyond mere memorization when teachers ask questions higher than the level of simple recall” (Perry, Vanderstoep & Yu, 1993; Redfiel and

Rouseeeau, 1981; Samson, Strykowski, Weinstein and Wallberg, 1987; Winne, 1979)

Along with the usefulness of Bloom’s Taxonomy, we recognize its limitations, too It is because Bloom’s taxonomy is considered as one-way hierarchy, in which knowledge is the lower than comprehension, comprehension is lower than application, and so forth through analysis, synthesis and evaluation However, this view is misleading since “achieving knowledge always presupposes at least minimal comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation” (Paul,

1990)

The problem related the linear design of the taxonomy also attracted many researchers Hirst (1974, as cited in Bernadowski, 2006) stated that knowledge is not usable without comprehension Others said that evaluation is needed in synthesis Then the evaluation level is in the same line with synthesis level (Kropp

& Stoker, 1966; Woods & Nuttall, 1973; McGuire, 1963, Ormell, 1974; Wilson,

1971, as cited in Bernadowski, 2006)

19

Many have found the ways to revise Bloom’s taxonomy Newcomb and Trefz (1987, as cited in Ulmer, 2005) suggested a condensed version from 6 levels to 4 levels, including: Remembering, Processing, Creating and Evaluating The first two require lower-order thinking skills whereas the last two require higher-order

thinking skills Lorin Anderson, a former student of Bloom’s, tried to update the

taxonomy with the hope of meeting the teachers and students’ requirement for the

twenty-first century Published in 2001, the revision includes several seemingly

minor yet actually quite significant changes The changes occur in three broad categories: terminology, structure, and emphasis The revised taxonomy now consists of 6 levels, from remembering to understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and to creating The very first level of the taxonomy is no more knowledge but remembering Comprehension was renamed to understanding The order of the top two levels was changed, and synthesis was renamed to create Besides the changes in the terminology, changes were found in the structure of the taxonomy as well The original structure had been a one-dimensional form while the revised version took the form of a two-dimensional table: the Knowledge Dimension (or the kind of knowledge to be learned) and the Cognitive Process Dimension (or the process used to learn) Thanks to these changes in the structure, the revised version of the taxonomy is intended for a much broader audience Emphasis is placed upon its use as a "more authentic tool for curriculum planning, instructional delivery and assessment”

2.2.2.2 Elaborating high-order cognitive questions using Bloom’s Taxonomy

' Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to identify types and cognitive levels of teacher questions has been the common choice of many authors (Bernadowski, 2006)

Levels of questions using Bloom’s Taxonomy

(1) KNOWLEDGE

- Skills demonstrated:

observation and recall of information

knowledge of dates, events, people, objects, places, definitions

- Sample questions:

Literature: What is the setting of ‘To kill a mocking bird’?

Social Studies: List three predominant economic systems that exist

Literature: Summarize Jem’s beliefs about Boo Bradley

Social studies: Discuss the nature of socialism

21

(3) APPLICATION

- Skills demonstrated:

Use of information

Demonstration of methods, concepts, skills

Solving problems using skill and knowledge

- Sample questions:

Literature: Show through role-play, the final scene in the novel

Social studies: How my lifestyles in the United States be modified if a more socialistic system were adapted?

Use of all ideas working together to create new ones

Generalize from given facts

Relate knowledge/concepts from several areas

Assess value of theories or ideas

Make choices based on reasoned arguments

Formulate an opinion or judgment

- Sample question:

Literature: Justify the title ‘To kill the mocking bird’

Social studies: Conclude and support which economic system leads to

a higher standard of living

2.2.3 Question Classification Systems

Many research have attempted to describe the types of questions teachers asked In a review study conducted by Gall (1970), he identified that there have

23

been at least 11 classification systems suggested to classify teachers’ questions Among these system, Bloom’s, Gallagher’s and Carner’s can be used to classify questions irrespective of context However, these system have their limitations which prove to be unhelpful in describing of questions asked in a specific context For specific curriculum, other classification systems are suggested Clements’s (1964) was developed to assess questions used by art teachers; whereas, Guszak (1967) was designed for reading teachers’ questions (Gall, 1970)

Guilford’s framework (1956) of identifying convergent and divergent thinking stimulated the development of Gallagher and Aschner’s classification system (1963)

in identifying five types of questions in classroom: cognitive-memory, convergent, divergent, evaluate and routine

Many other systems developed lately have made Gall’s list longer Textually explicit, textually implicit and scripturally implicit are other three categories of questions from Pearson and Johnson’s taxonomy (1978) Taba (as cited in Hyman, 1970) designed her system of classification using the perspective of cognitive

function within teaching Harlen (1985, as cited in Bernadowski) is known with a

type of question called “productive” asking students to actively engage with the

materials at hand

The focus of this study is on the question classification system developed by

(2006) This system was used in their studies to classify Language Arts and Social Studies teachers’ questions Accroding to this system, teachers’ questions are classified based on four general purposes:

(1) Retrieve information Some questions required students to retrieve

information directly from the text with little or no transformation of the information

Example: What is the Hawaiians’ favourite food?

(2) Construct message Questions were identified that required students to

construct meaning from text information Constructing meaning required

active manipulation of text ideas, such as making connections and drawing inferences

Example: (Having read and discussed about Antarctica, students were

presented with a text sentence, ‘Only small amounts of snow fall in Antarctica yearly’.) The teacher asks: ‘How does that make sense with what the author already told us about Antarctica?’

(3) Extend discussion Some questions prompted students to continue developing meaning by building on ideas that had been brought up in the discussion This type of question often involved the teacher’s incorporation of students’ responses into the formulation of a subsequent question

25

Example: (After a student’s named Aletha answered, ‘The author is saying she’s real mad’.) The teacher exended the idea by asking the other students, ‘What’s Aletha reminding us of? Why is that such a big deal? ’

(4) Checking knowledge A portion of the questions teachers asked checked

on students’ prior knowledge, such as asking students to recall the meaning of a word

Example: Checking students’ knowledge about the author’s description

of a fox ‘moving craftily’, the teacher asked: ‘What did we say craftily

meant?’

Comparing the previous sample questions provided by Beck et al with the ones provided by Bloom’s taxonomy (2010), Retrieve information question and Checking knowledge question are of lower-order cognitive level (knowledge), whereas, Construct message question and Extend Discussion question are of higher- order cognitive level (analysis)

The following section deals with the effect of teaching contents on teacher questioning level

2.3 HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE QUESTION LEVEL IN CLASSROOM

PRACTICE

The important role of questioning in classroom has been raised as high as a tool to develop student critical thinking The present section reviews various studies

on teacher questioning level in classroom practice

2.3.1 General Teaching Context

Bernadowski (2006) cited Godbol (1969) and Crump (1970) studies on teacher questioning Based on their results, these authors conclude that major emphasis was

on lower-cognitive level questions that require the students to recall content

Gall (1970) finds out 60% teacher qustions required students to recall facts (lower-order cognitive questions); about 20% required students to think; and the rest 20% were procedural He consequently concludes that: “in half century there has been no essential change in the types of questions which teachers emphasize in the

classroom.”

Barnes (1979) also finds that 83% questions asked in undergraduate university

classrooms are of factual level

27

Bernadowski (2006), making a review of studies, conclude that teachers tend

to ask lower-order-thinking questions than higher-order-thinking ones

Research on teacher questioning has indicated that up to 60% of questions

asked are of lower level, only 20% are of higher level, and the rest 20% are

procedural (Cotton, 2003)

2.3.2 Context of Content-area Reading in Language Arts and Social Studies

A variety of different teaching content areas can easily be found at any universities In this study, there are two of them to be focused: Language Arts and Social Studies in TESOL classes Both of them involves in reading comprehension

According to Kurfiss (1988), reading skill is not simply a matter of absorbing individual words Wilson (1999) is more specific, claiming that “critical reading” is more effective in developing student cognitive level, requiring from the student the

“ability to learn from texts, to think analytically and critically, and to develop an ethical and reasoned position as a result’

Varaprasad (1997) cited Harris and Hodges (1981) to define critical reading as the process of making judgments in reading, “evaluating relevancy and adequacy of what is read." Varaprasad also cited Thistlethwaite (1990), to remark that Through

interpretations, "in critical reading, readers evaluate what they have read and make

a decision This decision may be to accept what the writer has said, to disagree with

it or to realize that additional information is necessary before an informed judgment can be made" Wallace (2003) agrees with this

Once more, critical thinking is identified as an important factor in teaching reading content

Bernadowski (2006) cited Davis and Tinsley (1967) study on teacher questioning in Social Studies classroom The results highlight that teachers asked memory-level questions (lower-order cognitive level) in reading comprehension and class discussion.guide their class discussion

Bernadowski (2006) cited Haynes (1935) and Steven (1912) studies The

results identify that questions dealing with the recall of fact (lower-order cognitive

level) was common (77%) in Social Studies classrooms; and only 17% require student thinking

Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan and Worthy (1996) explore teacher

questions in 2 Language Arts and Social Studies teachers’ classes They observed two classes, 5 times each The results highlight the statistically significant predominance of lower-order cognitive questions (93%) in Social studies classes;

29

whereas in Language Arts, higher-order and lower-order questions were nearly equal (53 % vs 46%) (re: Table 2.3.2 a)

Table 2.3.2 a: Frequency (and Percentage) of Question Types in Baseline: Social Studies and Reading/ Language Arts (Beck et al., 1996)

Retrieve information & Check knowledge = lower-order cognitive level

Construct message & Extend discussion = higher-order cognitive level

According to Beck (1996), the distinctions between the two content areas are linked to the respective learning purposes

In social studies, students are reading for the purpose of learning new

information, thus, teachers have a greater tendency to ask students to

retrieve information from the text as a way of finding out whether

students have the information

In contrast, in reading/language arts, students are more familiar with

be more inclined to devote attention to getting students to react to

story ideasand events rather than merely retrieving them from the text

Bernadowski (2006) conducted his study based on Beck’s model, exploring teacher questioning in Social Studies classes The results also highlight the predominance of lower-order cognitive questions (87%) in terms of Retrieval of information and Checking for knowledge (re: Table 2.3.2 b)

Table 2.3.2 b: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Question in Baseline: Teacher One (T1) and Teacher Two (T2) (Bernadowski, 2006)

T2 baseline

13 (43%) 4 (13%) 10 33%) 3 (10%) lessons (n=5)

Retrieval of information & Checking knowledge = lower-order cognittive level Construction of message & Extension of discussion = higher-order cogntive level

Paul and Elder’s (2006) define Language Arts and Social Studies as followings:

- Reading/ Language Arts deal with the art of imagining, interpreting

and expressing in language how people do live and how they might

3]

live their lives It focuses on writings that include ideas of permanent

or universal interest and are usually expressed through poetry, novels

The study of literature fosters the development of skilled

understanding and critique of written work and application of

important ideas to one’s own life

- Social Studies include academic courses that foster understanding of

individuals, groups and institutions that make up human society They

study how humans live together in groups in such a way that their

dealings with one another affect their common welfare Social Studies

focus on gaining and applying knowledge about human relationships

and interactions between individuals and their families, religious or

ethnic communities, cities, governments, and other social groups

Some of the branches of Social Studies are history, geography,

anthropology and the study of culture

The difference in classification of these two class types lead to the different expectations of the types of teachers’ questions asked in each group Paul and Elder (2006) also pointed out those differences in their list of suggested questions asked in each group For example, according to them, essential questions within literature are:

1 What are the most significant ideas implicit in the text?

2 To what extent is the author shedding light on our character and lives? -

3 How does what I am reading apply to my life?

4 What is of universal interest in this writing?

Paul and Elder also elaborate a list of some essential questions related to Social Studies For example,

1 How do cultural beliefs, customs, mores and taboos come to dominate

people's lives?

2 How do cultural beliefs, customs, mores and taboos function within a

particular group?

3 To what extent are people influenced by culture views?

4 What are some of the implications of, and possibilities for, non- conforming behavior?

2.4 EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER QUESTIONING

Researchers have demonstrated that there is a relationship between people’s ages and their understanding of themselves as knowers, thinkers and reasoners

(Perry, 1970; Belenky et al., 1988; Kurfiss, 1988; Baxter-Magolda, 1992; King &

Kitchener, 1994; cited by Reed, 1998) This implied that with time, people’s beliefs

33

about their cognition development grow stronger In the same manner, teachers with many years of teaching experience are expected to understand themselves as good thinkers and reasoners and to practice their good thinking and reasoning in

classroom

Senechal (2010) also shared her opinion on the effect of teacher experience on teacher high-level cognition development It is experience that provides teacher the traits of high-order cognitive level, such as insight, knowledge, experience, wisdom, and good judgment Moreover, fluency and insights are enhanced by life experience and repeated exposure to the teaching subject, and help the teacher to develop the teaching repertoire with ensuing different ways of presenting the subject

Besides teaching the actual subject (which is much richer than the

stuff on the tests), a teacher offers insight, knowledge, experience, and

wisdom, whether directly or indirectly Over time, a teacher comes to

see the education field and his or her subject in perspective Newer

teachers may be excited about new discoveries, but teachers with

more experience can distinguish valuable ideas from passing fads

There are exceptions, of course, on both ends But experience can

bring humility, good judgment, and an ability to see and hear the

larger story The point is not that veteran teachers simply read

poems with more feeling The point is that life experience and the